some of these activities. but nothing has really in the end happened of any significance. in part because congress itself is very torn about what they think about these things, and the democratic leadership of the senate, the senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein has broadly supported this activity. and so you have for the most part a congress that has blessed these activities of the n.s.a. so that is why any kind of real change is difficult. >> get back to the information with mark mazzetti in a moment. we wanted to show the floor debate on the amendment and other hearings this year on the n.s.a. surveillance program. >> in recent years, the information gathered from these programs provided the u.s. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world. f.a.a. 702 contributed in over 90% of the cases. at least 10 of the events included homeland-based threats, and the vast majority business records fisa reporting contributed as well.

it is a great partnership with the department of homeland security in those with the domestic nexus. it has been our honor and privilege to work with director mueller and deputy director joyce. i will turn it over to sean. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. n.s.a. and the f.b.i. have a unique relationship and one invaluable since 9/11. i want to highlight a couple of the instances. in the fall of 2009, n.s.a. using 702 authority intercepted an e-mail from a terrorist located in pakistan. that individual was talking with an individual located inside the united states talking about perfecting a recipe for explosives. through legal process, that individual was identified and he was located in denver,

colorado. the f.b.i. followed him to new york city and later executed search warrants with the new york joint terrorism task force and n.y.p.d. and found bomb-making components and backpacks. he later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subway system with backpacks. also working with business records, the n.s.a. was able to provide a previously unknown number of one of the coconspirators. this was the first core al-qaeda plot since 9/11 directed from afghanistan. another example, n.s.a. was monitoring a known extremist in yemen. this individual was in contact with an individual in the united tates. individuals that we identified through a fisr that the f.b.i. applied for were able to detect

a plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. he had been providing information in support to the plot. the f.b.i. disrupted and rrested these individuals. also, david headley a u.s. citizen living in chicago. the f.b.i. received intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 mumbai attacks responsible for the killing of over 160 people. also, n.s.a. through 702 coverage of an al-qaeda affiliated terrorist found that headley was working on a plot to bomb a danish newspaper office that had published the cartoon depictions of the prophet muhammad. headley later confessed to personally conducting surveillance of the danish newspaper office. he and his coconspirators were

convicted of this plot. lastly, the f.b.i. opened an investigation shortly after 9/11. we did not have enough information nor did we find links to terrorism so we shortly thereafter closed the investigation. however, the n.s.a. using the business record fisa tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. >> now in order -- the way it works, is the -- there is an application that is made by the f.b.i. under the statute to the fisa court, we call it the isc.

they ask for and receive permission under this to get records relevant to a national security investigation and they must demonstrate to the fisc it will be operated under the guidelines that are set forth by the attorney general under executive order 12333. it is limited to tangible objects. what does that mean? these are like records like the metadata, the phone records i have been describing but it is quite explicitly limited to things that you could get with a grand jury subpoena. those kinds of records. now, it is important to know prosecutors issue grand jury subpoenas all the time and do not need any involvement of a court or anybody else really to do so. under this program, we need to get permission from the court to issue this ahead of time so there is court involvement with the issuance of these orders which is different from a grand jury subpoena. but the type of records, just

documents, business records, things like that are limited to the same types of documents that we could get through a grand jury subpoena. the orders that we get last 90 days. we have to re-up and renew the orders every 90 days in order to do this. now, there are strict controls over what we can do under the order. and again, that is the bigger thicker order that hasn't been published. there is restrictions on who can access it in this order. it is stored in repositories at n.s.a. that can only be accessed by a limited number of people and the people who access it have to have rigorous and special training about the standards under which they can access it. in order to access it there needs to be a finding there is reasonable suspicion that you can articulate, that you can put

into words that the person whose phone records you want to query is involved with some sort of terrorist organizations and they are defined. it is not every one. they are limited in the statute. there has to be independent evidence aside from these phone records that the person you are targeting is involved with a terrorist organization. if that person is a united states person, a citizen or a lawful permanent resident you have to have something more than just their own speeches, their own readings, their own first amendment type activity. you have to have additional evidence beyond that, that indicates there is reasonable articulable suspicion that these people are associated with specific terrorist organizations. >> madam president, thank you. i'm reading the statement on behalf of the commission and i'm here today instead of the vice

president, who is unavailable. >> the commission is concerned about recent media reports that the united states authorities re accessing and processing on a large-scale the data of european union citizens using major u.s. online service providers. programs such as the so-called prism and the laws on the basis of which such programs are authorized potentially endanger the fundmental right to privacy nd to data protection. the present case as reported in the media is also likely to reenforce the concerns of e.u. citizens regarding the use of their personal data online and

in the cloud. already in 2012, 70% of e.u. citizens were concerned that their personal data held by companies could be used by a purpose other than the one for hich it was collected. the prism case as reported in the media also highlights the difference between the european union and the united states. whereas in the u.s. system only u.s. citizens and residents benefit from constitutional safeguards, in the european union everyone's personal data and the confidentiality of their communications are recognized and protected as fundamental rights irrespective of their nationality. while reports are particularly worrisome --

>> colleagues, commissioner, 500 million european citizens were very shocked last week to find that a foreign nation has unlimited access to every intimate detail of their private ife. it was the president himself who came and answered to questions of congress and the media. so what do they see in europe? first of all, with all due respect to the commissioner, we get the commissioner for public health to deal with this issue. well, the president who should have stepped in his helicopter and flown to straussburg to answer, we have at least the responsible commissioner to respond to terrorism in the house. where is the responsible commissioner? why aren't the prime political leaders of europe here?

we also need to look at ourselves, colleagues. look around you. an empty hemicycle. this house just over a decade ago when faced with a similar situation, something called chelon, we decided to set up a heavy parliamentary inquiry. today we get a handful of dedicated m.e.p.'s to address 500 million citizens. we are failing the european citizens at a time where trust in the european union is at an all-time low! we should be ashamed of ourselves. and then to the subject matter itself, first of all, we can't have been very surprised to find that the americans are spying on us because we knew about it. we have been asking questions again and again and again. but asking questions through the commission is like talking to a wall. i have a long list of nonanswers to my questions about the

patriot act, about extra territorial application of u.s. law, and we get no answers from the european commission. the member states because there is a national debate about the same issue everywhere. we will ask the americans for an explanation. in all of the member states, including the u.k. and in my member state, we are doing the ame. the states are doing double speak to the citizens. are we surprised that they are losing trust? and actually, you can say the citizens don't trust their governments any more, but the governments seem to trust their citizens even less. we are also losing moral authority here. how can we tell the governments of say egypt, iran, any other country that they should not spy on their citizens because that has no place in a democracy if we are doing the same on our citizens? we are losing credibility here.

on the special relationship, i have heard nearly all colleagues here refer to the special relationship with our best friends and closest allies the united states. i don't know if you listened to the statement of president obama when he was addressing the american audience who were worried. he said don't worry, you know, we are not spying on you as citizens, we are only spying on foreigners. foreigners. so that is us. that is european citizens. so what kind of a special relationship is that? and over the last 12 years, europe has bent over backwards to be the closest ally of the americans in the fight against terrorism. and i'm sure that we will continue to be their ally. but we need to see eye to eye. and we expect the commission and with all due respect i'm grateful you are here, commissioner borg, but this is a matter for political leadership. we need political leadership in europe to defend the rights of our citizens and the time is now.

> as we look at the specific cases described in hearings earlier this week, what at first seemed like fairly dramatic claims, dozens of terror plots being foiled, looks a lot less dramatic under closer scrutiny. separate out prism and 702 from 215, you say 40 of these terror events again, whatever that is, were overseas so those may have involved prism or at least half may have involved prism in some significant way and 10 or 12 that are domestic. and then when you start looking at exactly what that means, you say how many of those was 215 actually used specifically? this metadata program. and well, the majority we believe. okay, six or seven. what are the cases?

one involved finding someone donating money to shababb, the ethiopia group. find and prosecute those people. not exactly a terror plot foiled and not clear why the same thing could not have been achieved using traditional tools. another terrorist already being monitored. whatever use was made of 125 later. not clear why a more targeted use of that would not have been possible. there was this other case involving a supposed plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. was it a serious plot? the deputy director for the f.b.i. says well, the jury thought it was serious because they were all convicted. there was no jury trial and they were not convicted of plotting terrorism. they were convicted of material

support for a terrorist organization meaning, again, assistance, money. and the new york stock exchange plot part of it appears to have involved the fact that the u.s. person involved in the case scoped out several tourist targets and it appears to have been abandoned. the u.s. attorney who worked the case said there was no specific lot. if these are the showpiece cases they are bringing up to justify the bulk collection of all americans' phone and possibly internet records, it is not clear that that is a justification that passes that cost benefit test. if you have general warrants to search any suspected place, any home, then yes it turns out when you are investigating crimes the thing that you used that will be helpful in solving those crimes was the general warrant. if instead, as we have, you have a system where warrants are

specific and based on probable cause, that is what will end up when you look back having been useful in solving crimes. i will say that they are similar in that they both appear to represent elements in a trend i think we have expected or suspected as being going on in the fisa court since 9/11, which is an increasing shift from restrictions on the front end on collection, that is to say up front restrictions on what can be acquired to back end restrictions where you have a very broad access, analysts themselves who have the discretion to select which things are going to be queried for search, which particular selectors will be entered to pull up particular phone records or e-mail contents. and then various back end procedures sort of counted on to prevent that from being misused.

i think that is, frankly, a dangerous shift in a way that the fourth amendment was supposed to prevent. it was centrally about moving discretion in searches from executive agents to neutral magistrates. and so, you know, instead of letting the agent decide which homes to search and having some kind of back end review to make sure that they weren't indiscriminately searching too many homes you would say no, you actually need an up-front warrant for each particular home you are going to search. the move away from that especially given the scale of the surveillance which i think makes any kind of meaningful oversight really more sort of a kymara than a reality as evidenced by the fact that what they are forced to do is statistical sampling to determine their validity should

not be sufficiently reassuring to make us comfortable with this larger scale shift from front end to back end restrictions. once you have got data, you have got the data. and the back end restrictions on what you do with it last only until you decide to change them and the record so far suggests we won't necessarily know if they decide to change them. >> do you see any limitation under the fourth amendment or the patriot act on the government's power to gather information en masse on people? >> yes, sir, i see very many limitations from both the fourth amendment and from the patriot act and the fisa act. there are many, many limitations put in and many checks and balances both to the -- >> let's go over a couple of those. i assume you have to go to the

fisa court and those are one of the checks and balances. could you go to the court and argue that you had a right to obtain, say, either an individual or every american's tax return? could you argue that with a straight face? >> i think they -- >> i have a long list of them. yes or no? >> any individuals tax return? there are separate laws that cover the acquisition of tax returns. >> you could get tax returns. could you get somebody's permanent record from school? >> if it was relevant to the investigation you could go and ask for it. >> somebody's hotel records? >> if it was relevant. >> the record of everybody who stayed in a particular hotel at a given time? >> if you can demonstrate to the court it is relevant. >> get my visa and master card records? >> if i can demonstrate to the court -- >> could you argue with a straight face you could create a database of every financial transaction that happen in the country because visa and master card only keep those for a couple of years?

>> that is dependent on what i'm investigating and what the relevance of the information and how it would be used and how it would be limited. it is not a simple yes or no blback or white image. >> could you get google searches? >> excuse me, sir? >> all of the searches on a search engine. >> i would have to make a showing to the court that that kind of information is relevant. >> get all google searches and come back and say we will search them later when we got that information. >> it would depend on the way i would be able to search them and again under 215 of these -- of this statute that we are talking about, it is only if i can show that it is related to specific terrorist organizations. >> can you get the g.p.s. data from my phone? >> i'm sorry? >> the g.p.s. data or mapping software on my phone, too?

>> only if it is relevant to investigation of the specific terrorist organizations. >> how is having every phone call that i make to my wife, to my daughter relevant to any terror investigation? >> i don't know that every call that you make to your wife and -- >> but you have got them. >> i don't know that they would be relevant, and we would probably not seek to query them because we wouldn't have the information we would need to make that query. >> we are here today for a very simple reason. to defend the fourth amendment. to defend the privacy of each and every american. and the director of national intelligence has made clear the government collects the phone records without suspicion of every single american in the united states. my amendment makes a simple but important change. it limits the government's

collection of those records so those records that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section 215. opponents of this amendment will use the same tactics that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights. fear. they will tell you that the government must violate the rights of the american people to protect us against those who hate our freedoms. they will tell you there is no expectation of privacy in documents stored with a third-party. tell that to the american people and our constituents back home. we are here to answer one question for the people we represent -- do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every american's phone records? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition?

>> i reserve the balance. >> the gentleman from florida seeks recognition. >> madam chair, i rise to claim time. >> the the gentleman is recognized for 7 1/2 minutes. >> i'm very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman, very distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee, the gentleman from michigan mr. rogers. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. the american people, certainly some well-intentioned members in this chamber have legitimate concerns and they should be addressed and we should have time and education on what actually happens in the particular program of which we speak. i will pledge to each one of you today and give you my word that this fall when we do the intel authorization bill we will work to find additional privacy protections with this program that has no e-mail, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses.

14 federal judges have said yes, this comports with the constitution. 800 cases and between the 197 case have affirmed -- 1979 case have affirmed the underpinnings of the legality of this case. 800. so 14 judges are wrong and 800 different cases are wrong. the legislators on both intelligence committees, republicans and democrats, are all wrong. why is it that people of both parties came together and looked at this program at a time when our nation is under siege by those individuals who want to bring violence to the shores of the united states? those who know it best support the program because we spend as much time on this to get it right, to make sure the oversight is right. no other program, no other program has the legislature, the judicial branch, and the executive branch doing oversight of a program like this. if we had this in the other agencies we would not have

problem -- problems, excuse e. and think about who we are in this body. have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly we forgot what happened on september 11? this bill turns off a very specific program. it doesn't stop so-called spying and other things that this has been alleged to do. because that is not what is happening. it is not a surveillance bill. it is not monitoring. it doesn't do any of those things. what happened after september 11 that we didn't know on september 10 and again passing this amendment takes us back to september 10 and afterward we said wow there is a seam, a gap. somebody leading up to the september 11 attacks, a terrorist overseas called a terrorist living amongst us in the united states and we missed it because we didn't have this capability. what if we would have caught it? the good news is we don't have to what if. it is not theoretical. 54 times this and the other

program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in europe, saving real lives. this isn't a game. this is real. it will have a real consequence. this is hard. think about the people who came here before us in this great body. madison. lincoln. kennedy served here. the issues they dealt with and politics of big and moving america forward while upholding the article one mandate to this house that we must provide for the general defense of the united states and think of those hallenges. the anash amendment would have prevented government from invoking section 215 of the patriot act. but not the content of the calls unless the government had a reasonable suspicion that a specific target was involved in terrorism. it fell one vote short. 205-217.

93 republicans voted for the amendment and 134 against. >> france, mexico, brazil and other countries, we insist on freedom and privacy in solidarity with our friends in germany, we sayforeign language]. and we insist on freedom and privacy in solidarity with our friends in france, we say language]. e insist on freedom privacy in solidarity with our friends in mexico and throughout the

spanish speaking world, we say language]. in solidarity with our friends in brazil, we sayforeign language]. we insist in freedom of privacy. the state, the state has made this equation. security or liberty, take your pick. listen to benjamin franklin's well-known admonition in 1755 he said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." today, in 2013, faced with a choice from a government which moves without morality, without

respect for liberty or law, here or abroad, without adherences to the constitution, let us declare that we have made the choice and we choose liberty! we choose liberty over a national security state! >> as a result of edward snowden's disclosures, i have learned that your cell phone turned off can be used as a listening device. an open microphone. turned off. as a result of edward snowden's disclosures, your cell phone's locating devices can be used when your cell phone is turned off. the greatest fear i have is that nothing will change.

there is a general apathy for what is happening because "it is not about me." i'm reminded on the statement of the wall of the holocaust museum. "first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out because i was not a socialist. then they came for the trade unionists. and i did not speak out because i was not a trade unionist. then they came for the jews, and i did not speak out because i was not a jew. then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." who is looking at all of this personal information? how will it be used? how will it be abused? stand up, america, we are mad as hell and we want you to stop this spying on us now. >> look at the program that we have.

we as american citizens, everyone at this table is also an american citizen. have agreed that we would take our personal data and put it into a pile, a lockbox. that would only be looked at when we had reasonable and articulable suspicion that we had connection to a foreign al- qaeda or related terrorist group and look into that box. in 2012, we had 288 such selectors that we could go and look into that. that is it. of the billions of records, only 288. and with that, we had tremendous oversight. when you look at the amount of oversight from this committee alone and from others, from within the d.n.i., the department of defense, with our own director of compliance works our own general counsel and with our own i.g. and with all of our compliance individuals at every

level everything that we do on this program is audited 100% on the business record fisa. 100%. the data is kept separate from all of the other data that we have. i think it is important to understand that the leaker did not have access to this data. period. the technical safeguards that we have there ensure that no one else gets access to it and no one can get a query unless it goes to one of those 288 numbers of the numbers that are currently on the list. only 22 people at n.s.a. are authorized to provide numbers, to approve numbers and about 30 are authorized to look into that database and that is it. when you look at the number of people that we have and the oversight and compliance that we have on this program, and what it does to protect our civil liberties and privacy, we

couldn't think of a better way to do that. let me give you some thoughts here because i think this is important for our country to think about this. if you look at the trends in the c.t. arena, in 2012 it was the highest globally that has been ever. over 15,000 people killed. in just this last month, 2,336 people were killed. 1,510 injured in pakistan, afghanistan, syria, iraq and nigeria and yet there has not been a mass casualty here in the u.s. since 2001. that is not by luck. they didn't stop hating us. they didn't say that they were going to just forgive this. they continue to try. it is the great members in the intelligence community, our military, our law enforcement

that have stood up and said this is our job and we do it with our partners and our allies. and it has been a great partnership. when you look at the numbers that we gave you early on about the numbers of terrorist-related events that we helped stop, recall that 13 were in the u.s., 25 were in europe. they are closer to the threat. it is easier to get to europe and they are going after them. and i think it is a privilege and honor from the united states perspective to know that we have helped stop incidents there. as congressman king said, one incident was called 9/11. we call that one incident. that should never happen again. that is what we are about here. that is what we are trying to do.

i think it is also important to note that we have asked industry's help. ask, okay, more accurately, we have compelled industry to help us in this manner, by court order. and what they are doing is saving lives. and they are being penalized because they are helping to save lives in our way of life so that people sitting behind me can express their feelings. that is something we all stand up for so they can say what they believe. we think it is important that they have the facts. industry has helped because they were compelled to help. and i will tell you there are a lot of patriots out there that know that what they are doing is saving lives not only here but in europe and around the world and it is the right thing to do. and it is done under court order. i think it is absolutely vital that we understand that.

so where do we come from? eight plus years, we have been a team for seven plus years. this is the greatest workforce i have ever met. these are patriots who every day come to work saying how can we defend this country and protect our civil liberties and privacy? nothing that has been released has shown that we are trying to do something illegal or unprofessional. when we find a mistake, a compliance issue, we report it to this committee, to all our overseers and we correct it. in the business record fisa and in the 702 there have been no willful violations. under our executive order 12333 there have been 12 over a decade. the majority were done in foreign space on foreigners.

i think that is important to understand. for our foreign partners and our allies, we hold ourselves to that same standard no matter if we operate here or abroad. if we do something that does not fall within an intelligence requirement, it is wrong. we report it, we hold our people accountable. if they do that willfully and disobeyed orders, then they are held accountable and most all of those people are gone. three of them were military. two were given a court martial, reduced in rank, half a month's pay for two months and 45 days extra duty. we hold our people accountable and we report to the committee everything that we are doing. as we go forward in the future one of the things that we talked about, this is a tough time for n.s.a. where everybody says what are you doing or why are you doing it? here is what we do, when we get together, we don't -- well, maybe a couple times we whine. but we actually say it is much more important for this country

that we defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today telling you why we defended these programs than having given them up and have our nation, our allies be attacked and people killed. and the interesting part is we have shown we can do both. defend the country and protect our civil liberties and privacy. chairman, ranking members, it has been an honor and privilege to work with this committee even though at times you wirebrush us. you know that we are going to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and everything that we know every time, that is our commitment to you.

and that is our commitment to this country. >> we got on the press account the n.s.a. is collecting billions of cell phone location records every day and reporters gathering information or communication of information of online gaming sites. the stories suggest the activities are directed abroad but we know the n.s.a. was making plans to obtain cell site location information under section 215. we also know that the n.s.a. engaged in bulk collection of internet metadata under the register statute. it suggests to me under that kind of a legal interpretation of fisa the n.s.a. could collect the same amounts of massive information domestically that this suggests they are collecting abroad. maybe i should direct at you, i

know the program authorized the bulk e-mail and other internet metadata was shut down in 2011 because it wasn't operationally useful. under the current law would the n.s.a. be able to restart the bulk collection of internet data? >> i think that if the n.s.a. and the department of justice were able to make a showing to the fisa court that the collection of internet metadata in bulk which is a category of information that is not protected by the fourth amendment if it were relevant to an authorized investigation and could convince the fisa court of that yes, it would be authorized. >> it was shut down before as not being operationally useful. would you have to go to the court? >> i believe we would have to. >> to restart the bulk collection of internet data,

would you have to go to the court? >> i believe we would. >> mr. cole? >> yes, mr. chairman. under the fisa statute i think you would have to get court authority just like you would under 215 to do that and would only last for a period of time. there is no active authority for it right now. >> setting aside any technology limitations, would it authorize you to obtain internet metadata, not just e-mail? >> i think that is correct, but would be limited to the metadata in that regard. >> if i could make sure i understand mr. cole's answer. the only limitation would be that it would be metadata? >> it cannot be content. and the latest order of the fisa court under 215 specifically excluded cell site location as well. >> i was going to add that you would have to show that the categories of metadata that you

were seeking was in fact relevant to the authorized investigation. >> mr. cole, you talked about the legislation senator lee and i talked about to update the electronics communication privacy act. want to require in criminal matters government obtain a probable cause warrant to gain access to the contents of electronic communication stored by a third-party provider. section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act requires the government to show only relevance to an authorized intelligence investigation or to obtain records. i'm not talking about bulk collection but the more standard usage of 215. as section 215 ever been relied upon to obtain the contents of stored communications from a third-party provider? >> not that i am aware of, mr.

chairman. >> mr. litt? >> i'm hesitant to give an answer to that. it is not a question i ever asked. i would prefer to get back to you on that, sir. i don't know the answer sitting here. >> can you get back to me by the end of the week? >> i will try. >> if they haven't as a legal matter could section 215 be used to obtain the contents of communication? >> i would have to think about that. considering that it is -- it is limited to the types of information you can get with a grand jury subpoena, i would have to look because of the aspects of stored communications and things of that nature, i would have to check. but i'm not sure. i would have to go back and look at that. so without a check of the legal authorities, i will get back to you on that, mr. chairman. >> and i appreciate you checking those.

i think you understand by the question -- >> yes. >> there are some serious legal ramifications to your answer. >> i agree. >> well, good. the -- i'm going to yield to senator franken. but general alexander you talked about using and i will get to you in my next round about going to the private sector and looking for best practices from them. you can imagine i'm going to ask if those best practices had been used would a 29-year-old subcontractor have been able to walk away with all of your secrets like mr. snowden did? senator franken? >> going to ask that in the next round or do you want it answered now? >> you -- that is okay. i don't want to take -- you have been waiting patiently. i will wait my turn. >> okay. the general will have plenty of time to think about that.

i have a question for you. see if you can do both at the same time. i have the surveillance transparency act, i think you are all familiar with. among other things, general alexander the bill would require n.s.a. to tell the american people how many of them have had their communications collected by the n.s.a. do you think that the american people have the right to know roughly how many of them have had their information collected by the n.s.a.? >> i do, senator. i think the issue is how do you describe that? those that are under a court order so under fisa as you know to collect the content of a communications we have to get a warrant. the issue would be almost in the title three court do you tell someone, a u.s. person who may

not be a u.s. citizen that we are tracking that we are tracking them here in the united states or that we have identified that? >> i'm not suggesting that you have to tell people they are being surveilled. i mean that they personally are a suspect. what i'm saying is the american people have a right to know how many american people have had their information collected. that is a different question. i wasn't suggesting we tip people off that are suspects. >> i think in broad terms, absolutely. >> in broad terms? >> for example under 215 today, less than 200 numbers approved for reasonable articulable suspicion for being searched in the database. >> 200 orders or 200 people? >> 200 numbers. some may be multiple numbers per person. those numbers could be both foreign and domestic. in fact, they are. but that is the total number for that category for a section 215

today under that program. the other one that i think, and i think the deputy attorney general mentioned, is we can also put out more about what we are doing under the f.a.a. 702 program that we have compelled industry to do in a more transparent manner. the issue is how do we do that without revealing some of our own capabilities? and we are working with the interagency to get resolution on that. >> okay. i'm being told by staff that that is actually the number of people that had their phone numbers searched, not collected, right? >> so under 215, all of the data is going into a repository. >> metadata. >> metadata. if, for example, i'm talking to a foreign terrorist my number would automatically hit that link. in fact, you probably would want

to know that. i know the white house would. >> we need to know that. >> the issue would be how many of those. what we would do is we would look at those and based on our analysis give those numbers that are appropriate to the f.b.i. to go through the appropriate process to look at those numbers. >> mark mazzetti of the "new york times." we have seen the hearings in the past year with general alexander and director clapper. among the revelations in the past year have been the tapping of the cell phones of foreign leaders. what has that meant to the administration? how impactful has that been? >> it has been incredibly embarrassing for the obama administration. it has taken up a lot of time of senior officials trying to explain to allied governments specifically how this happens. now, many allied governments are not surprised that even friendly governments spy on each other

but it creates major setbacks for some diplomatic relationships. germany is one of them. the united states has long had a relationship with britain and other english speaking countries that they don't spy on each other. beyond that relationship there really isn't -- kind of fair game. everything is fair game. so the merkel relationship has really been one that sort of fractured this year as well as other relationships. the relationship with brazil for instance. >> as the year wraps up, general alexander in a hearing this past week said we can't live in a pre 9/11 moment, which is something he said several times throughout the year. as we go into 2014, what does the administration hope to do with this issue and will anything happen legislatively in terms of pulling back some of the n.s.a.'s ability? >> it is not going away in part because the revelations will

continue. there is still thousands of documents. the press will be continuing to report them. i think the real question for 2014 is whether president obama is going to deal with this actively. this is now part of his legacy. and how he wants it to be part of his legacy is the question for the next year. he has spoken occasionally about it. he said he wants a debate about surveillance. the tension between liberty and security. and yet frequently he avoided opportunities to really talk about it. the question is for 2014 will he embrace the issue as one for debate and try to roll back some of the things that the n.s.a. has been doing and really create a debate in the united states about where the boundary should be. >> and a story that you will keep reporting about. >> yes. >> thanks for being with us on our year in review. >> thanks very much. [captions cl cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow night, a look at gun laws. after the school shootings last year, president obama called on congress to pass new legislation. debate,show you senate hearings, and testimony from gabrielle giffords. she retired after being shot in 2011. year in review, thursday night at 8 p.m. eastern. next, a discussion on faith with current and former directors of the white house faith-based offices. followed by a look at the health care law as some insurance coverage begins january 1. then, initiatives to reduce food waste in the united states. later, a look at the nsa surveillance programs.

>> i think radio is the longest and best form of media that is left. doing now, long conversations, only c-span does longform conversation anymore. u.n. charlie rose are the only people i know who read books the way that i do, and it is true nissley revealing when an author has their book read these days with page notes. it is rewarding to them and i get a great deal of satisfaction when an author says to make, that is the best interview i have had on his book tour. on things interview that matter, his new collection of essays, some of which are autobiographical. that makes my day. i like radio. >> more with radio talk host hugh hewitt, sunday night on c- span. directors of the white house

faith-based offices. since president bush began it in 2001, they discuss faith and the white house. from southern methodist university in dallas, this is about two hours. >> ladies and gentlemen, we at smu and the center for presidential history is honored to have you here with us this evening. i hope i can speak for all of us when i say it is an honor to have our five guests and panelists with us today. these five people have served our country well. they have led the charge in finding fair, constitutional, efficient, and effective ways for our national government to assist and partner with faith- based and neighborhood organizations in our midst which are doing great social good. in short, they have invested personally in making our country a better place to live in. we have the opportunity to hear from all of them are on the same stage.

this would oversee various departments of the government, including the attorney general's office, the department of education, the department of health and human services, and several more. for years, president bush and his advisers believed that small faith-based and community organizations had been at an unfair disadvantage, competing on an unlevel playing field when it came to qualifying for and accessing and receiving federal funding. although they were serving american communities in many ways, they did not have the resources, information, or connections to pursue federal funding that larger, more prominent organizations have. in some instances, faith-based organizations were finding themselves at a disadvantage in applying for funding specifically because they were faith-based. the white house office of faith

based and community issues was established. each of our panelists has a server is serving as the director of this very office. i encourage you to take a good look at your programs. you will see that they are all eminently incredibly qualified, experienced and hard-working people but for now, please allow me to briefly introduce all of our distinguished guests. our first guest, john dulio served as the first chairman. he is currently a professor of politics, religion, and civil society and professor of political science at the university of pennsylvania and is involved in multiple organizations aiding our nations communities in his hometown of philadelphia. after he left office, president bush appointed our second guest, jim toey, as the new director. he served for four years and is now in his third year a atve mari a university. our third guests served at the office of faith-based and

community initiatives from 2006- 2008. since 2008, he has served as the distinguished senior fellow at baylor university and is president of the sagamore institute, an international public policy research firm. when president obama came into office in 2009, he oversaw a revamping of this white house office including renaming it the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. he appointed as its new director our fourth guest, joshua dubois. he left his office after serving from 2009 to 2013 to author a new book and become a weekly columnist for "the daily beast" and start values partnerships aimed at helping companies and nonprofits partner with the faith community. finally, i would like to introduce our fifth guest, melissa rogers, the current executive director of the white house office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships.

before assuming her white house post in march of this year, she served in senior positions at the center for religion and public affairs at wake forest university divinity school, the brookings institution, the pew forum on religion of public life, and as general counsel for the baptist joint committee for religious liberty. i encourage you to take a look at each of their bios on your program. these are truly remarkable people. we have the opportunity tonight to hear from all five of these experts and civil servants. allow me to explain how we will proceed. i have asked each of our panelists to share 10 to 15 minutes about their experiences, successes and difficulties, their views on the role of the white house in matters of faith in the public square. after each has had an opportunity to speak, i will lead a discussion amongst our panelists about some of the most important issues they have raised. finally, at the end, we will open up the floor for you to ask questions of our guests.

it takes very little faith to believe that i have spoken enough for now. panelists, we are eager to hear about your experiences and thoughts on the role of the white house in matters of faith and the public square. audience, please join me in welcoming our first analyst, the first director of the now office of faith based and neighborhood partnerships. >> thank you very much, brian. it is an extraordinary pleasure to be here. i want to thank brian and the other leaders of the center for bringing us altogether. it is a real personal trait to be here with my friends and colleagues, jim, jay, joshua, and melissa, melissa not only being the first woman but the first person whose name does not begin with j. [laughter]

each of my colleagues here served with incredible distinction. i say that -- this is not the thing you kind of say when you are all together and you have to be nice, i mean it from the heart. jim succeeded a crazy fat man from philadelphia [laughter] and then succeeded in institutionalizing the office under far from easy circumstances and was able to forge faith-based and community initiatives plenty. jay sustain that office and work creatively to grow the effort even as the sense drained from the second term hourglass. if you don't believe it, just wait for the book coming out in january. it tells the story. joshua transitioned the office under a new president of a different party and engaged the

widest spectrum of leaders of all faiths and no faith and established centers in every cabinet agency and other federal units as well. i am a book salesman, as you can tell. i am selling their books and i am on commission, by the way. [laughter] last but not least, melissa, whose history with the office predates her own directorship, having served from her perch at brookings as a key confidant and friend to both the first bush and the first obama fa so- calledith czars and she has begun to develop exciting new faith-based partnerships and initiatives. god bless each of them and god bless resident george w. bush and god bless president opera obama. -- barack obama. i have been teaching at ivy league universities for more than 30 years. i qualify as having the key value of an ivy league professor which means i can speak for five minutes or two hours on any subject with no essential change in content. [laughter] before you hear from my betters on this panel, let me inflict 10

or 12 minutes or so of my thoughts about our topic for this evening, fate, the white house, and the public square and i will offer four sets of points. the first point i would make is that today, faith-based is not only a term associated with a white house office that is soon to be 14 years old and a faith- based, more importantly, is a permanent part of the public discourse about religion, policy, and civic life. in the half dozen or so years that are seeded the establishment of the office, small but intellectually and ideologically and religiously diverse cadre of policy wonks and opinion leaders came together. what happened was that we trumpeted a fact, a fact that was hiding pretty much in plain view. namely, the fact that america's urban churches come the synagogues, and mosques and other houses of worship and, most of all, the small street- level ministries concentrated in the nation's poorest places.

all of these functions as sacred places that serve civic purposes. food pantries, daycare, drug and alcohol prevention or treatment, homeless shelters, afterschool and summer education, youth violence reduction, welfare to work placement and job training, health care, prisoner reentry, and literally scores upon scores more. in many cities from coast to coast, these faith-based organizations were not just add ons but accounted for much or most of given types of social service delivery either on their own or in partnerships with other groups or with public agencies. the vast majority of these sacred places serve people of all faiths and no faith, most did not discriminate on religious grounds in mobilizing workers or volunteers and their

primary beneficiaries, at least in most urban areas, were children, youth, and young adults who were not themselves members. while the larger more professionalize and more secularized religious nonprofits were, for the most part, treated fairly in competition for government grants and contracts, smaller religious nonprofits including communities serving ministries in inner-city neighborhoods were often discriminated against, sometimes for innocent reasons like byzantine bureaucratic protocol but also, in some not so innocent cases, out of outright hostility to religious people and places. president clinton and the first lady clinton were the first major fence, white house fans come of faith based, the first federal faith-based center was established during the second clinton term out of the office out of the department of housing and urban development under secretary andy cuomo., it was in the 2000 presidential election that faith based went national to stay.

vice president doran governor bush had their respective favorite locutions on the subject. their respective messages on faith based were much the same. i still think the best single sentence in this regard was the one that governor bush first delivered in his july, 1999 duty of hope speech, the speech that launched his presidential campaign. " government cannot be replaced by charities but it should welcome them as partners, not resent them as rivals." a new white house office, while respecting all federal church, state doctrines and limits would build on the federal so-called charitable choice laws that had been and active in the late 1990s and would welcome religious leaders into the white house, into the public square, into the public discourse and debate and dialogue and it would promote faith based and community initiatives and

partnerships to expand mentoring for the children of prisoners and achieve many, many other civic goals. not everybody was thrilled with this approach. orthodox secularists, mainly among democratic party elites, and orthodox sectarians, mainly among republican party e lee, did not like the bipartisan centrist level the playing field approach. still, each candidate persisted in embracing and in articulating this vision. thereafter, so did governors and mayors in each party. although it has received relatively little attention, the white house office has its younger siblings in dozens of state governments all around the country.

second, today, the imperial evidence on the existence of faith-based organizations and programs is both deeper and wider than it was back in 2001 when the office was established. for instance, a forthcoming study by my university of pennsylvania colleague is being conducted in concert with orders for sacred laces come of the nations leading national nonsectarian organization that tends to the historic preservation of older religious robberies involved in community activities and purposes, it will indicate that the civic replacement value of the average older urban congregation is what it would cost tax ayers were these sacred places to top supplying social services and serving civic offices as they do. this replacement value is, if anything, several times what was estimated to be when the first generation of studies were completed. faith-based organizations and programs have, what he called, i halo effect is respected economic development that goes even far beyond social service delivery.

stay tuned for those interesting academic findings. i know you cannot wait. [laughter] third, in the courts of public opinion and the courts of law, the core ideas and sentiments behind the white house office that began in 2001 are at least as widely embraced today than before. for all the church -- state controversy that has turned this into a toxin, nearly 3/4 of all americans including republicans and democrats believe in the civic value of sacred places and believe that most to a very good and cost- effective job at supplying vital social services and support a level playing field for all religious nonprofits when it comes to government grants. it is certainly true that in the past dozen years or so, we have witnessed a rise in the fraction of americans that claim no

religious affiliation. the survey researchers have turned this 'none.' when i heard that 15% of americans were nuns, i got excited, look out. even many of the so-called nones see themselves as religious or spiritual and consider religion important in their only daily lives. moreover, churches are second only to the military in public trust and confidence, way at a public schools, newspapers, labor unions, big businesses and congress. over the last dozen years or so, virtually all of the major constitutional and other legal challenges to faith-based have resulted in rulings that either favor faith-based efforts or that challenge those that would treat faith motivated citizens as second-class citizens. alas, our nation's social and civic capital is in excitedly

bound with its spiritual capital. that is a fact. it is a fact warmly embraced by most americans without regard to party, religion, demographic description, or social economic status. that said, the lives of future white house office directors will be no less interesting or surrounded by political conflicts and crosscurrents that our respective tenures were. my final points -- to me, the soon to be 14-year- old white house office, in addition to all the actual substantive ongoing good works should serve now and in the future as a symbolic reminder that, deep is the divisions may go on church-state issues, whether in general or in particular issues like religious hiring rights, what unites us is always more important than what

divides us. as my jesuit friend liked to preach, and essential unity and nonessential diversity in all things charity. who among us does not want to find ways for diverse faith- based organizations to partner with each other, with secular nonprofits and with federal, state, or local agencies to improve and expand the health and human services that go to america's elderly shut-ins, to the ever-growing numbers of senior citizens that many regions and cities live alone or other elderly relatives or friends? who does not want the same faith-based and neighborhood partnerships to improve and expand in relation to the u.s. department of agriculture's food and nutrition programs? to curb this bikes in child heard hunger when the reduced price meals the kids get during the school months are no longer a readily available.

a bipartisan, centrist, problem solving, community anchored vision was behind the original case for faith-based. i do not mean to say that by harkening back to that vision, all of our disagreements will melt away nor do i mean to say that by rallying together to meet specific challenges like the two i just mentioned, we will have nothing about which to fuss, fight, or sue each other over. i do mean to say that the focus exclusively on the disagreements while forgetting the past, present, or potential common grounds, to dispute without regards to what resulting the disputes might yield in the way of a common good is the road to civic tradition. -- perdition. the white house has persisted in part because people of diverse faiths and no faith focused fatefully and together on the civic challenges that faith- based and neighborhood partnerships could help to meet. doing so with genuine compassion, looking for compassion and truth in action,

and caring especially about the least of the last and the loss of our society. speaking to a group of boston inner-city clergy in 2005, senator hillary rodham clinton put it this way -- "who is more likely to go out on a street and save a poor at risk child and someone from the community, someone who believes in the divinity of every person, who sees god at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left behind our children?" that is why we need not to have a false division or debate about the role of faith-based institutions. we need to just do it and provide the support on an ongoing basis. " in different ways, presidents clinton bush, and obama embraced that vision and with different approaches, each of my friends and esteemed colleagues tonight should be credited with fighting the good fight and defending and translating that vision into action.

what a blessing each has been and what an honor it is to be here this evening with them and with you all so thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> once again, i'm in the position of following john delulio, author, scholar, expert on all things faith- based. it reminds me of the seventh husband of elizabeth taylor who said, on their wedding night, to his new bride, i think i know what to do but i'm not sure how to make it interesting. [laughter] as the longest-serving faith- based director, i will give it a try.

properly understood, the faith- based initiative is about changing lives. it's about finding and funding the most effective programs of with public and private resources, programs that help addicts recover, the youth turn to opportunity instead of yang's, the jobless find work, the homeless stable housing, children of prisoners, and reentering prisoners jobs and housing so that they contribute to society instead of attacking it. these problems are pressing today as they were when the faith-based initiative was launched, perhaps even more so, in the last four years. we have seen an increase in the number of people living in poverty according to the census bureau, an increase of six point 7 million people. president bush believed in america's armies of compassion and the transformative change of their programs. he also knew that two office government programs at the

national, state, and local level discriminated against them. government often commit a kid that if tape-based rich wanted to partner with them, they would have to change their identity and secularized. at the time of president bush's election, the federal government was regularly forcing some groups to change their mission statements and diversify the board of directors of they were not all of one faith and take down the mezuzah at the door or the crossed her by and even change their name if they wanted to play ball with the federal government. asked the metropolitan council of jewish poverty in new york it was denied access to the grant because jewish was in their name or the orange county register mission in los angeles. ask old north church in boston who was denied a grant. ask the seattle hebrew academy after their earthquake when they were denied a fema grant to help rebuild their school. ask the salvation army in janesville, wisconsin.

all had been manhandled by government and the high priest of secular orthodoxy who were hostile to all things faith- based. this, of course, this effort of these secularists begins with protestants and other americans united to the separation of church and state, an organization now known as americans united for the separation of church and state, an organization steeped in catholic bigotry. religion and presidential politics have been entwined from our founding. from george washington's inauguration when he added to his oath, the words " so help me god" and bent over to kiss the bible to the present day. even thomas jefferson, the author of the " wall of separation of church and state" was two days later, in a government building attending sunday church services with u.s. government employees and a marine band playing church hymns.

frank and roosevelt in a time of war spoke of the mercy that flows from the cross. you can go down throughout presidential history and find other analogues. when president bush, during his term in office, talked of faith and the power of faith-based organizations to change lives, he was squarely in line with residential residents. why the uproar over faith-based initiatives? why the cries that the wall separating church and state was under attack? that he was ushering in a theocracy and paying back his friends on the religious right? by the end of his term, all of these charges proved to be countless. first, the initiative was constitutional and succeeded in every single court challenge including the supreme court of the united states case freedom of religion foundation versus dewey.

it was decided on standing grounds but the record shows the white house that what we had conducted were not in no way religious exercises. the university of notre dame's ace or a grant which was sued by the owner can congress won a unanimous reversal by the u.s. circuit court and the real winners were the schoolkids being taught by these notre dame grads. the president eagle treatment executive order in december, 2002 went unchallenged because it was fair and forthright. it leveled the playing field. it was carefully analyzed d by dr.elulio. second, there was the charge that a theocracy was coming to power and the government was being christianized. this also proved bogus. the only evidence of divine intervention in the bush presidency took place when that poor lawyer was hunting and survived being shot at point- blank range by vice president cheney. [laughter]

third, the charge of the initiative with -- would pay back the religious right that kay's withered when the associated press was given, by me, a list of all the discretionary grants by federal agencies that had been awarded the audience of dollars in grants. the reporter could not find any evidence of grants being funneled to the religious right. it was no story. these attacks that adhere to the faith-based initiative from the outset despite john delulio's most fervent efforts stigmatized the effort and polarize supporters and critics and, in the process, the poor who could've benefited from access to more effective programs and they were punished by their so- called friends. this is what history will show, i think, about the bush faith-based initiative -- it was indeed a presidential priority and second that it succeeded against all odds.

it was at the heart of president bush's compassionate, conservatism and was a priority of his presidency. the faith-based initiative was mentioned in each of his first five state of the union speeches with new pilot programs announced each year. then later, funded by congress in a bipartisan fashion. he attempted to get other legislation passed in congress and he succeeded after great effort with some. he devoted his schedule, presidential events each year to this initiative and spoke at several white house faith-based conferences throughout america. these are conferences he had started to help groups learn how to access government programs.

there is no disputing president bush's commitment. he measured the seriousness of a president by these factors. while 9/11 and two wars change the trajectory of his presidency, he never wavered in his support of the faith-based initiative. i was with him at his home yesterday and we talked about the faith-based initiative and he believes in it as much now as he did when he was running for office. i think it was one of the proudest contributions he made as u.s. president and his library features it at the entrance. to the accomplished months of the faith-based initiative -- i will cite five that i am most proud of. the president fought discrimination and defended the right of faith-based groups to be in the public square. the seattle hebrew academy got its grant, old north church got its grant, the local hetta agency stopped harassing the local salvation army and the executive order went unchallenged.

second, the president promoted title vii of the civil rights act and the hiring rights of religious employers and signed into law thetana program to needy families in the charitable choice legislation when it was reauthorized in 2005. i was there at the signing ceremony in the east room and the president touted those fundamental rights of the group to hire him a religious basis that had been upheld by the supreme court of the united states unanimously in 1972. third, the president succeeded in getting parts of the so- called care act passed which provided tax incentives for charitable giving. this lasted for years until the current administration let it lapse. fourth, the president reached out in bipartisan fashion to democrats. i recall my second week on the job, an oval office meeting with resident hillary clinton -- [laughter] when senator hillary clinton and other democrats were there in the oval office talking about the faith-based initiative. he reached out to governors at each national governors association briefing, owed --

urging them to open a faith- based office and mostly democratic governors opened them. there were 35 offices open by the time i left and they were primarily democratic governors for it i held events with u.s. senators that were democrats, bill nelson of florida, senator tom daschle, we tried to do what we could to reach out on a bipartisan basis. sometimes these efforts were futile, i share john's view that why partisanship should be at the core of the future of the faith-based initiative. finally, all of george bush's signature programs were funded by congress and helped countless americans. first the compassion capital fund, second a program for the

mentoring of the children of prisoners, third, the access to treatment and recovery program he started for drug addicts. he used vouchers to choose faith-based organizations if they wished. fourth, the president reentry program and then five, the helping america's youth program. when you look at these accomplishments and you realize what was done against a pretty strong head wind, you have to realize that president bush's efforts were not in vain. the defense of faith-based organizations from discrimination have to continue. unfortunately today, we see government hunting faith-based organizations like my little university emma ave maria university in southwest florida, tenures old seeking to maintain its sincerely held religious beliefs and has been forced to file a lawsuit against the huge united states department of health and human services. unfortunately, whenh you seeh theses regulations country, a faith-based organization in a way without precedent by democratic and republican presidents alike. you realize it is never safe for faith-based organizations in the

public square. i will be interested in hearing from my colleagues on why the voices of cardinals and evangelicals and mennonites, the little sisters of the poor, for crying out loud -- all these voices have been ignored and why there are scores of lawsuits challenging this. i will close my remarks by saying the highlight for me was the opportunity to tour the country and see the many great faith-based organizations and community groups at work, volunteering their time, expressing their compassion, their love, answering the fundamental questions -- who is my neighbor? am i my brother or sister's keeper? the great courage of these men and women -- tire member being at a drug treatment program in pasadena built around the torah with a great success rate. i met a 12-year-old boy in st. louis who was not able to read a word at that point in his life but after a year of mentor ring, was able to read at the fourth grade level.

so many programs -- i remember in dallas, a homeless shelter run by a woman -- she was running an incredible homeless program which was transformative. i have a debt of gratitude to those memories. i will leave you with my biggest laugh during my time as faith- based director at the white house. right after a state of the union address, the president asked me to organize a meeting of all of our critics, the people who could not stand the faith ace initiative. he said get them together and hear with their concerns are and see if you can find common ground. i asked my assistant to organize a meeting in my office. i gave her the list, americans united for separation of church and state, the aclu, the leadership operates on civil rights, the american university women -- a lot of so-called liberal groups in america, all of whom could not stand the bush faith-based initiative. it was hard to find a day everybody could meet and she

found a wednesday in february which they could come to the white house and meet with me. it turned out that when happened to be ash wednesday. i went that morning, as is my custom, to mass and at mass on ash wednesday, the priest gives you ashes. when a bald person comes before a priest, they see a blank canvas. [laughter] the artist comes out in them. this priest on this morning decided to do a life-size reenactment with mary and joseph i came back from mass to the office to the meeting, they were all assembled and i walked in with a big black cross on my four head. [laughter] they thought i was making a statement. [laughter] i do think at the end of the day, what unites us and what unites -- i met joshua tonight for the first time -- i knew melissa from her work atpew -

i think what unites us is a desire to make this country more strong from within and to live up to our highest ideals in serving those in need. tank you and god bless you. [laughter] >> good evening. i would like to add my word of thanks to jeffrey and bryan for hosting us and even more so for your commitment to presidential history. you may be interested to know that the esteemed white house historian bradley patterson has written the authoritative account on white house history and has identified this office is one of the most important innovations in the modern era. i wish you well in your task in your task and on that note, i recognize alan lowe from the national archives administration and the bush center staff who are here. godspeed in your mission to enliven this history for the purposes of tomorrow's problem solving. serving the white house was clearly one of the high privileges of my life. that is one thing that each of

us share on the panel. when i was invited to serve as the third director, i went to the rector one and two before i sat in the chair to ask for the council. the generosity sustained me through my time in office p and there-even in fellowship that those of us at this table enjoyed for the first couple of hours before joining you this evening was worth the price of admission. we have shared a common bond. having said that, it is really important, i think, for all of us in this room to acknowledge that we were the hired help. it was not our ideas that matter. it was the counsel that we provided the presidents we served. it was the execution of the ideas that we were a part of. it wasn't about us. having said that, let me also acknowledge that there were hundreds of staff in the white house and across federal agencies over the past seven

years who have served this hard. they are clearly among the most talented people i have worked with him these were men and women who were brought to washington emma not because they were looking for a job title, but because of their idealism and their commitment to cause. so it is really quite a remarkable story and great fun to be able to do the oral exercise -- oral history exercise that you are doing here at smu. i was serving president of a think tank in indianapolis. a big fan of all of the precepts that john had laid out, the 1990s consensus that was formed. but i confess i was skeptical of the idea. i believed in a white house strategy. i saw a big united states

government operation was maybe treading on dangerous territory. i was cautiously optimistic about what might happen. the context about why and where was coming from, there were two points at animated my interest in the 1990s. first come as a christian, i was quite interested in seeing my faith applied to the living problems and human needs. so i was desirous of strategies that would further that. but i also came to the work as a welfare reformer, a welfare policy guy. what welfare reform success of the 1990s tommy was that -- 1990s taught me was that transformative life change does not happen in government programming.

we incentivize good behavior in welfare reform, which offended a lot of unintended consequences of what had been a 60-year entitlement program. we had 97,000 families in welfare. within a few years, that number reduced to 7000. unbelievable reduction. better, poverty went down as employment went up. so don't you think it was one of the biggest social policy celebrations of a generation. a social entrepreneur who has impact on the thinking of so many came to washington and said congratulations. it isn't remarkable -- it is a remarkable policy compass meant, but you are not even at the 50 yard line. -- oc a compliment -- policy accomplishment, but you are not even at the 50 yard line.

we realized there had to be a civil society solution that complemented government policy. so had the do that? -- so how do you do that? fortunately, other than washington, there were others beginning to think like this here in some in congress -- like this. some in congress and charitable choice, which john mentioned, was inserted in the welfare law in 1996 as an attempt to open the door wider for government- faith partnerships and to level the playing field to address start away some of the issues that jim powerfully described in discrimination about these groups to did not want to partner in a financial way. there was a governor george bush in texas and the governor jeb bush in florida and indianapolis mayor steve goldsmith were all leading and sort of pioneering these strategies in their states

and cities. but government, again, and policy do have their limits. one of the key precepts of chervil choice was to protect the first amendment, the establishment clause, but also free exercise. often times, what we said to faith-based groups that did not want to diminish at all their spiritual mission -- as a matter fact, that was their priority when they deliver their services, was that they should apply for a government grant because they would be sued and they would lose. i knew the government had a role. he taught us that the direct spiritual mission of the most faithful are ill-fated in a

pluralistic society as government beneficiaries. before john took office, i was encouraging again none of this strong presidential role while skeptical of the united states government role. and president bush clearly succeeded on that front, both john and jim referencing these points. but he led a culture change that was both historic and profound. faith-based stephen carter wrote a book called cultural disbelief in the 1990s and religion was the only acceptable prejudice in america. at that point in time, 1990s, faith-based was not in the vernacular. today, it is not only, place, but a presumed positive. that is because president bush, much like the iconic armor on the shoulder on the rubble of 9/11 with the bull horn and the

firemen in new york city went to the city after city for eight years and thanks the faith-based restaurants leaders. when you -- and thanked the faith-based grassroots leaders. that message permeated and the culture has changed. unbelievable a compliment. -- unbelievable accomplishment. i said let's do a 50-state network of organizations. they are absolutely created a model that looked like a cabinet agency campaign. as a result, many lives were changed for the better. just to give you a glimpse of what that looks like, the magnitude of that effort, there were 12 that -- well federal agencies that had faith-based community centers.

but more so, what president bush called a determined attack on need. let me take you to february 2000 8, 1 of the last cap the meetings that president bush held. i was invited to report on the eight-your progress of this determined attack on need, this compassionate agenda. three things are happening in my head at the same time as i filed in the room. i'm looking at the cabinet members around the table and my first thought was where do i speak when it's my turn to give a report? i was eyeing some space between the budget director and the chief of staff wi-lan listening to the cabinet members produce chief of staff while i am listening to the cabinet members produce their reports.

i was looking at the labor secretary whose initiative changed thousands of lives from a highly discriminated group. he used the day after his lasted of the union to go to a prisoner reentry facility to tell 20 guys who just got out of -- use the last day after his last state of the union to go to a prisoner reentry facility to tell 20 guys who just got out of prison and lifted the arms of so many faith-based groups post-katrina and wildfires in california to help them do their jobs better here in those faith-based groups are the last in -- are the first in the last out. secretary of state condoleezza

rice got the lines share of the policy work -- the lions share of the policy work. more africans died of aids then did africans in all the previous wars in africa combined. yet you may know of as a bush's $15 billion solution to the problem. if you may not know, the faith- based community initiative was embedded in that game 70% of the grantees were indigenous african they faced in community groups african faith-based in community groups. one of my favorite accounts is the commerce department. i was asked why is there a faith-based entity of the commerce department?

caldwell here in texas, houston, he did and am only noble job turning a war zone into a want for a place to raise a family through economic development and partnerships with commerce. the list can go on and on. these were not efforts that were first that equal treatment nor about money, which occupied most of washington media attention to the work. it was about human need. and through partnerships, dynamic and should tj partnerships, dressing more needs and in more -- dynamic and strategic partnerships addressing more need and in more different ways. let me turn to where my bias lies, which is the state and local level.

obviously, all compassion is local. while still in office, did work with the governors that jim worked with. 19 democrats and 60 republicans. every state -- 19 democrats and 16 republicans. every state has community partners and mayors all across the country and many governors filled many of the presidential primary spots. remarkable leaders. but nonprofit organizations are small. they operate in local communities hidden from the public view largely. but they take it together to provide a powerful force. this is perhaps the biggest idea of the faith-based and community initiative.

the president was saying we look first of these organizations that are already healing and helping all across america and come alongside them. there are 1.6 million nonprofits in america. nonprofit sector in america produces one in 10 jobs in the american economy. it is a muscular story. $300 billion a year is donated in philanthropy. so it is a large part of how we do business in america. faith-based initiative that only reforms government, but revitalized society and move closer to having us create a pathway to stronger partnerships. my final word is a story that john hope bryant, who is a social investment bankers shared at one of our white house compassion in action

roundtables. ambassador young had shared a story from his day, martin luther king jr. after a trip to the middle east, dr. king was visiting with a local congregation and give them a speech. they were all fired up. a kind lady in the back said, "dr. king, you are the good samaritan." and he warily walked to the side and said, "i don't want to be the good samaritan. i was just a their." the jericho road is a nasty place. it is a dangerous road. it is wind he and dark. it is not a place i want to have it. i want to be the guy that paves it. i want to be the guy that creates a jericho road that is a blessing to its community. the groups that do that everyday, fixed the city's roads and sidewalks and repair schools and, more importantly, reading broken lives and broken spirits are the faith-based groups that we are so privileged to serve. thank you for letting me tell a few stories about it. [applause]

>> good evening, everyone. it is wonderful to be here with you. thank you to jeffrey and bryan for organizing this event. i have to say i was a little concerned coming today. i was telling john that, at the back of my mind, i was wondering if this was one big floyd by the aclu to get us all in one place so they can take us out at the same time [laughter] everybody safe? very very good -- everybody good? ok. yes, they are accomplished professionals at the top of their fields. yes, president bush ably lead for eight years in the highest office in the land. but more important time in their positions are their titles are the people that this group of leaders have served.

thousands, probably millions, vulnerable americans and citizens of the world from all faiths and backgrounds are able to live lives of greater dignity and self-determination because of the white house faith-based initiative. and the programs and services and partnerships that it created. i am honored to stand with this group and for those people and to represent an institution that embodies in my mind the best of the american spirit. my work with the faith-based office began in january 2009 formally, but might partnership with president obama on faith- based issues actually existed a long time before that. i had known the president for

several years and had been praying privately with him and sending him daily devotionals and working with him on religion and public life starting in the senate office and then on to the 2008 presidential campaign. i have to say this was an area where the president had some pretty well-developed thoughts already come along before he met me. it is well known that his first foray into public life was as a community organizer. what it is important to know that that organizing in the south side of chicago was with and among churches. helping to set up job-training programs and getting their food pantries in order and making sure that their voices were heard down in city hall. so when barack obama entered the national political scene, he was determined to work at the intersection of religion and politics and to try to do something about this also promised that progressives, democrats had a disregard for or even antipathy toward faith and values. we heard echoes of this approach

in his 2004 democratic convention speech, a speech that got me involved in politics. he said that we worship an awesome god in the blue states. then there was his address to reverend jim wallis's call to a renewal conference in 2006, a speech that i was honored to work with him in the senate office and he developed a template for how this president would engage issues. in that speech, then senator obama declared that, "our failure is progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of this nation is not just rhetorical. our fear of getting preachy may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems. he went on to say individual churches are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex offenders reclaim their lives and rebuilding the gulf coast in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. and he concluded, the question is, how do we build on these partnerships between legend and secular people of goodwill? it will take more work he said, more than we have done so far. the tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed and beside will need

to accept some ground rules for collaboration." after that 2006 speech, he would address the topic of religion and politics and the faith-based office consistently in the years ahead, from the 2007 politics of conscience speech to the united church of christ general conference, a 2008 speech in gainesville, ohio and where at least nine separate times in the white house as well. but those ground rules of collaboration that he mentioned in those early days in 2006 could not have arisen out of thin air. in all of this talk about faith- based partnerships, the president and i were keenly aware that we were building on a foundation laid by president george w. bush and by john julio and jay hein and others who aren't here.

i want to say clearly that the playing field for federal funding of faith-based relations was not leveled in 2001 and would 90 -- would not find parity if it wasn't for president bush. but the work of the faith-based offices opening the eyes of the sometimes federal bureaucracy to the fact that faith and civic organizations matter, that they are the back long of this country -- the backbone of this country. and far from being treated with suspicion, they should be embraced by government at all levels. these concepts seem self-evident to us now. back then, they weren't. so president bush and the folks on this panel stood up and spoke out and took some lumps and bruises for them. and for that, our country owes him a debt of gratitude to i do believe that come instead of continuing with the exact model of faith-based hardships under president bush, president obama has taken the initiative into new and important directions. in 2009, we launched the first- ever faith-based advisory council, an outside group of diverse religious and civic leaders who provide advice and guidance to faith-based office. we also began a new and expanded faith-based engagement at the state department on global affairs.

we extended our work at the corporation for national service and we issued a new executive order that answered some of the apartment and unresolved questions about the legal -- some of the important and unresolved questions about the legal ramifications. but perhaps the most important shift is a subtle 1, 1 that is central to president obama's for faith-based and civil partnerships. that is an expanded vision of the relationship between the federal government and the religious social service organizations from one that i'm really focuses on financial relationships between the two sides to a vision of faith-based partnerships that also includes significant room for nonfinancial partnerships that still serve people in need can we like to call it civic partnerships.

that grew from three imperatives. first, we will healing -- we were dealing with a dramatically restrained resource pool. second, we had a perception problem. as i traveled around the country in 2007 and 2008, i heard from so many pastors who falsely believe that they should be getting money from the faith- based initiative and wondered why there check was not in the mail. that is not the fault of anyone here but the misplaced perception did exist. finally, president obama, based on his years with work with face with faith-based groups, found that they wanted partnerships but they did not have to be founded in a grand. while ensuring that the playing field remained level and creates base for more flexibility and fewer legal hurdles and finding best ways to serving those in

need. in addition to keeping the playing field level, which i believe we did, we also develop new programs that went beyond funding for civic or nonfinancial partnerships that serve the vulnerable. critically important. this was not about advocacy. any one of our thousands of partners will say that it was solely focused on social service. this included our jobs program where we trained thousands of faith-based groups to set up and running climate ministries him a reach out to local employers and get their congregants back to work. it also included are together for tomorrow initiative which provides technical assistance and on the ground and training for faith-based group to want to partner with their local public schools in dozens of cities and counties around country. it included the president's interfaith campus challenge. i would encourage folks related to a college university to get involved. it is about rain diverse student religious organizations together on college campuses around the country to tackle common community problems.

from disasters response training to helping congregations set up summer food ministries, building interfaith coalition on human trafficking and allowing faith- based organizations to function as a small business organization. they still serve americans in need but are not dependent on federal grants alone. these civic and should turn of the jewel in the toolbox and the federal faith-based initiative and i am honored to have played a role in its creation. as the president said at the 2009 national prayer request, the particular faith and that automates each of us can promote a greater motivation and all of us. feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, make peace with there is strife, repair where it is broken and to look upon those who have fallen on hard times. as i close, one of the things that i am most proud of is convincing the former chair, a

church state attorney who was not looking for a new job, to consider taking my place as leader of this wonderful office. melissa rogers is an absolute rockstar. i am so excited about where she is taking this leadership now. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. those are characteristically

overly generous remarks and i appreciate it. joshua has been so kind in terms of helping me get settled and learn how to do this job and i have only been on the job for a few months but i am grateful to him. but i can also say that i have been able to look to the rest of these gentlemen as well. the have each been gracious to me about giving me the wisdom that they gathered through their years of service and being very open and terms of welcoming my call, my questions. and i just want to say how much i am grateful for that and i will keep calling you. [laughter] just keep answering the line, please. i want to thank the smu community, brian franklin, the staff at the smu center for presidential history and all of you for being here tonight. it is truly an honor and a privilege to be able to have this conversation with you this evening. i would also like to say special word of thanks to former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush for the

honor of being here at smu where the presidential library located and i want to thank them for their years of distinguished service to our country. as you know, the theme for tonight's program is faith, the white house, and the public square. and i'd like to start by placing that theme in a larger context. that is the context of the first amendment through our constitution. as you know, the first 16 words of the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the first clause is often called the establishment clause and it basically prohibits the government from promoting religion generally or preferring one faith over another. the second clause is often referred to as the free exercise clause.

traditionally, it has been aimed at ensuring that the state does not unnecessarily interfere with the practice of faith. with this backdrop in mind, i would like to address a few questions that maybe on some of your minds about the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships or the office of faith-based and community initiative as it was during the bush years and faith in the white house generally, faith in the public square. the first question that some of you may have in your mind is is the mission of the white house office consistent with the first amendment? and the answer is yes. the goal of the office is not to promote faith. that is the job, of course, of religious individuals and communities themselves. the mission of the office is to promote the common good of all americans. and the office does so by forming partnerships with organizations and individuals of all faiths and non-. in other words, what unites us is service to our neighbors. this is why the offices called

the office of faith they stand